In
my recent debate1 with Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation
Research, one of his charges against the scientific theory of evolution was that
it is atheistic. In my rebuttal I stated that science is neither theistic nor
atheistic; religion is simply not on its agenda.

Gish
apparently did not agree with the main thesis in my opening statement: "The
debate about creation and evolution is unfortunately involved in a confusion of
the categories of worldviews and mechanistic explanations of how the world
originated and developed. The biblical doctrine of creation and philosophical
evolutionism are opposing worldviews. The scientific theory of evolution
(referred to as evolution from here on) and special creationism are opposing
mechanistic explanations. One could (many do, including me) accept the creation
worldview and evolution as scientific mechanism at the same time without
conflict. We must avoid the extremes of insisting that science somehow demands
us to accept only evolutionism as a worldview and that Christian faith in the
Creator somehow demands us to accept only fiat creationism as a mechanistic
explanation."

Responsible
scientists should accept evolution at least as a working model for correlating
biological data. As a result of this debate I am now firmly convinced that a
scientist who accepts creationism as a mechanistic explanation is being
irresponsible or unscientific, for creationism cannot be falsified and therefore
is unacceptable as scientific theory. Evolution is the only, or at least by far
the best, scientific theory to account for origins.

Contrary to
the claim of special creationists, evolution is not a threat to my Christian
faith, because no scientific theory has anything to say about values such as
meaning, purpose, love, beauty, goodness, or evil. Nor can science be any threat
to my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

On the
other hand, I used to see no problem if Christians accepted creationism, since
naivete in matters of scientific understanding does not make one any less of a
Christian. However, I now recognize a number of dangers to Christian faith that
creationism poses.

(1)
Creationism demands belief in a particular interpretation of Genesis to the
exclusion of others. This belief has the danger of basing faith in a personal
God and Jesus Christ on this mechanistic interpretation. Belief in special
creationism thus can become almost a prerequisite for faith in Jesus Christ.
This rigid position raises an unnecessary stumbling block for most people
educated in the sciences.

(2)
Creationism ignores and obscures the essential message of God in the biblical
doctrine of creation. Special creationists seldom, if ever, mention these
biblical teachings: God created the universe freely and separately, with a
beginning and with a temporal existence which He alone gives it. Everything
created is intrinsically good. The universe and everything in it depends
moment-by-moment upon the sustaining power and creative activity of a
Providential God. We are not the end-products of meaningless processes in an
impersonal universe, but persons made in the image of a personal God. The God
who loves us is also the God who created us and all things; this establishes the
relationship between the God of our faith and the God of physical reality. We
can therefore trust in the reality of a physical and moral structure to the
universe, which we can explore as scientists and experience as persons. God
creates life with physical matter and through natural processes.2

(3) Creationism is a poor interpretation of the creation accounts in the Genesis
text. There are unsolved inconsistencies, unanswered questions, and problems
with a literal interpretation, e.g., the appearance of highly developed
terrestrial vegetation on the third day before the creation of the sun and moon,
the appearance of birds before terrestrial "creeping things," the
appearance of great sea monsters before the beasts of the earth and cattle
(mammals implied), and the quite different sequence of Genesis chapter 2
compared with chapter 1. Henry Morris has listed 25 inconsistencies between the
geological column and the order of creation in his literal interpretation of
Genesis.3 Examples of unanswered questions include: Who are the
daughters of the sons of earth which the sons of Adam took for their wives)
Didn't these unions pollute the human gene pool with nonhuman genes?

(4) Creationism is bad theology. The "Omphalos"4 argument
that the earth and the universe merely appear old and were created with this
appearance, or that the sediments with apparently old fossils were placed in
that order by the Creator makes God a malicious and willful deceiver. Special
creationists also have effectively a Deistic view of God as the
"Watchmaker" who created the world at one time and is allowing it to
literally run down and dissipate back into chaos, according to their
interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. The danger is that Deism
leaves noroom for the
biblical view of an immanent, personal God Who provides for, maintains, and
continually upholds everything in the universe. Special creationism thus ignores
the biblical doctrine of Providence and replaces it with Deism, an unchristian
view of God.

For these
reasons special creationism should be rejected: its dangers to personal,
biblical Christian faith, and its role as a pseudo-scientific threat to science
education.

References

1September
28, 1981, at San Diego State University; first debate with Duane Gish was
February, 1978, sponsored by Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.